The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notices to the Centre, the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS), the National Medical Commission (NMC), and other authorities on a plea challenging the NBEMS’s decision to drastically reduce the qualifying percentile for NEET-PG 2025-26 admissions.
A bench comprising Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe sought responses from the respondents and posted the matter for further hearing on February 6.
The controversy stems from a September 2025 notification issued by the NBEMS that revised the qualifying percentiles for NEET-PG 2025 to accommodate over 18,000 vacant postgraduate medical seats across the country. As per the new criteria:
- The general category cut-off was reduced from 50 percentile to 7 percentile.
- For reserved categories, the threshold was brought down to zero percentile, meaning candidates scoring even negative marks (as low as -40 out of 800) could technically become eligible for Round 3 counselling.
This move has triggered strong backlash from sections of the medical fraternity, with many calling the decision “unprecedented” and a potential compromise on healthcare standards.
The petition, filed by social worker Harisharan Devgan and doctors Saurav Kumar, Lakshya Mittal, and Akash Soni, contends that:
- The retrospective alteration of eligibility norms violates Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 21 (Right to Life) of the Constitution.
- Aspirants made critical career decisions based on the originally notified standards, and changing them midway renders the process arbitrary and unfair.
- “Postgraduate medical education cannot be treated as a commercial exercise,” the petition asserts, adding that regulatory bodies are duty-bound to uphold academic integrity and prevent dilution of merit.
The NBEMS’s move has drawn significant criticism from professional associations and educators. Many argue that allowing candidates with extremely low or negative scores into postgraduate medical programs could adversely impact the quality of future specialists and erode public trust in the healthcare system.
The top court’s intervention now sets the stage for a key judicial examination of the balance between filling medical seats and maintaining educational standards.
